View Poll Results: Do you support the Human Clone project?

Voters

32. You may not vote on this poll

Yes, definitely

2165.63%

No, it is dumb

928.13%

I don't care

26.25%

What is the Human clone project?

00%

Do you support the Human Clone project?

This is a discussion on Do you support the Human Clone project? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I strongly disagree about this topic because it is against the ethical nature of human being.
BTW: the web site ...

When I was younger, I wished that I had a clone of myself that would go to school for me so that I could go play video games... only I wanted all of the information that he learned to be transferred right to my brain via mental telepathy....

Then again I also wanted a large air conditioned bubble to fly around in because walking anywhere in Arizona sucks arse (it is very hot there)...

I'd like to see some more enthusiastic members here at cprogramming.com

I think the poll results speak for themselves.

When I was younger, I wished that I had a clone of myself

Dito. But then as i grew older i realized that the world was having enough trouble dealing with just one of me.

*has to stop typing for a moment to laugh* You realize, Betazep, that you're making it rather hard to reply to any thread that you've recently replied to. Your sig keeps making me laugh.

Then again I also wanted a large air conditioned bubble to fly around in because walking anywhere in Arizona sucks arse

I always wanted to be able to levitate myself around. And also levitate other objects while i'm at it. This is mainly due to the fact that combined with an eject button on the VCR remote, you wouldnt have to get up to put the movie back in its case.

Not sure how relevant that is to human cloning but i was always taught to share...

The project is positive for mankind. People like you are just afraid,

That sums it up uncomfortably close. People tend to be afraid of things that are either (or both)
a) New
b) Not understood

There is no risk with this project.

I disagree here. There is always risk. And i think the level of risk here is high. But if human beings let risk stop us from accomplishing anything, where do you suppose we'd be now? There is great potential from this science. Its not a matter of suppressing the knowledge (banning cloning), its more a matter of making sure the technology and responsability are handled in an ethical manner.

A collection of living human cells? If so, that means that if you took a blood sample, or a donated organ, that those are distinct human lives? That seems ridiculous.

A collection of self-sufficient cells? Well, we all are dependant on other things to some degree, so how much do we need to be capable of doing on our own before we are considered alive? If one needs something, like a respirator, to live, are you still considered living?

A collection of cells that is born from a human female? Do c-sections count? Is a baby not alive one minute before birth, but alive one minute after? The baby itself has changed remarkably little in that time -- it changes behavior because of a different environment, but most of its structure and activity, on a cellular level, is unchanged.

A collection of cells which exhibits higher brain function? But some people in very deep comas can return to consciousness even after weeks or more of practically zero cortical function.

A collection of cells with a living brain? It's now possible to keep the brain cells alive practically indefinately on machines (brain cells are believed not to have time-based programmed cell death like other cells).

Actually, it's very easy to argue, and probably correct, that the nuclear bombing of Japan saved American *and* Japanese lives.

Japan was not on the verge of surrender -- any European power would have surrendered, but the Japanese were determined to fight until the bitter end, and were even training children of 7-10 years on how to conduct suicide bombings against US troops, should they land on the main islands of Japan. They were trying to arm as much of their civilian population as they could.

In theory, it could have been akin to Vietnam (the Vietnamese later used the same tactics of suicide bombing and arming civilians); the US would certainly have won in any event, but it could have taken years more, and cost many, many more lives than it did.

Well, there IS that... but, long-term radiation is also not nearly so bad as environmental groups lead you to believe. In fact, up until a point, increasing radiation exposure DECREASES risk of cancer; it causes more transcription for many of the 300+ enzymes involved in DNA repair, which on the whole tends to reduce the risk of cancer, rather than increase it.

The actual atom bomb sites took only about two weeks for radiation levels to fall to safe levels. People who were exposed (i.e. present at one of the sites) have somewhat increased chances of developing cancer later in life, but studies have shown it increases the chances of cancer from 15-20% (base cancer rate for the particular group of interest) to about 18-23%. It's different enough that radiation obviously has an effect, but, although tragic, the atom bombs have not have massive collateral effect.

Engineer: Again, going back to my previous post, the real issue is, IS this a human life? Does an embryo of 6-8 cells have the right to live? Would a random sample of 6-8 cells from an adult be considered a "human life" and have the right to live?